PulpLit.net

Spider-Man

Spider-Man ushers in the 2002 summer movie season with great confidence in its style and great reverence to its source. The film tells the story of Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), a put-upon teen who begins to develop strange powers after being bitten by a genetically-altered spider (in the '60s it was nuclear hysteria that rendered the spider radioactive. These days we fear the attack of the clones). As Parker comes to grips with his powers, seeking his place in the world and pining after the girl next door, his first nemesis, the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), is plotting a personal reign of terror.

While the film mostly succeeds in establishing the character?s origins, the road from comics to celluloid was not an easy one for Spidey.

Following years of litigation over the property, the result of an early '80s firesale down at the ol? Marvel Comics factory, apparently attended solely by Roger Corman, the Cannon Group, and other distinguished Hollywood players (don?t believe me? I?ve got the rights to The Fantastic Four), Columbia Pictures finally announced production on the webhead?s first big screen venture.

Almost immediately, the griping began. Damned, cursed Internet! Blasting everything from the casting (?Tobey Maguire? Great, The Spider House Rules?) to cosmetic changes (?Organic web shooters? You expect me to suspend disbelief and buy that? Now a high school student pulling a MacGuyver and jury-rigging wrist bound web-spinning bangles? that I?ll buy?), the Geek Chorus echoed loudly. Enter Sam Raimi to silence the critics.

Raimi, a genre-god of a director behind cult classics such as Evil Dead II, Army of Darkness and Darkman, possessed the same dark, edgy sensibility as the young Tim Burton who, a decade earlier, successfully married Batman to the mainstream. As with Burton, Raimi has always infused his pop-mythos with a playful side, orchestrating merry mayhem into his own personal macabre.

While his earlier works flaunted their pulp fiction inspiration, Raimi had carefully selected and directed a series of projects throughout the late 1990s aimed at earning him some Hollywood credibility, propelling him from the low-budget, high-profit
B-movie basement to the highly-coveted A-list. With A Simple Plan, For Love of the Game and The Gift, Raimi reigned in his spastic cinematography and steadied his camera and craft to pay closer attention to details such as characterization and story,while still taking time to pay homage to his B-movie roots. In a brief but memorable scene, frequent Raimi collaborator Bruce Campbell, all puffed up bravado and Elvis swagger, is cast as the ring announcer in one of Peter?s first challenges. Sam Raimi fans may also notice that Uncle Ben's car is a 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88, known as "the Classic" by Raimi & friends, and has appeared in almost all of Raimi's films

Raimi?s blossoming confidence is echoed nicely in Spider-Man. This is demonstrated in a sequence where the newly empowered Peter Parker goes hog-wild on his burgeoning abilities, bounding joyously from roof to roof, skittering up every vertical surface in his way, blasting webbing with wild abandon before finally settling down and realistically applying great responsibility to his great powers.

Raimi does find ample opportunity to apply his distinctive directorial stamp to several sequences, including the ?costume design? phase and an amusing mid-film montage documenting Spider-Man?s early career and ?man on the street? reactions. Also, Raimi, like many directors, has a small stable of favorite actors which he sprinkles throughout the film. Most notable, J.K. Simmons (The Gift) turns in a fantastic, albeit brief, performance in his cigar chomping, scene stealing turn as reviled boss J. Jonah Jameson. Xena fans may also want to keep an eye out for Lucy Lawless as a punked-out Spidey groupie, and the guy who created it all, Stan ?The Man? Lee appears fleetingly during the Goblin?s first attack sequence.

By devoting almost a solid hour of the two hour running time in establishing the character of Peter Parker, Spider-Man earns its thrills by allowing the audience to place themselves firmly into Parker?s shoes before the character begins soaring against the Manhatten skyline. Maguire does such a good job fleshing out the character that when he first appears on screen in his full CGI-enhanced Spider-Man regalia, it's a bit disconcerting. This is one of those rare extravaganzas where the special effects truly take a back seat to character development.

As has become the norm in the age of the Internet, Spider-Man has felt the slings and arrows of speculation and spoilers for months prior to release. While the buzz from pre-release screenings was generally very good, complaints were growing over the use of CGI (computer-generated image) character models for some of the more elaborate stunt sequences (and there are many in this film, such as the numerous airborne battles against the Green Goblin). The most oft-heard phrase, harped upon by one infamous syndicated thumb wagger, was that the CGI looked fake, the movements unrealistic, and that the characters lacked weight. Truth be told, the effects are usually thrilling. There are certainly moments where a discernable eye can pick out what is CGI and what is SAG (Screen Actors Guild), but more often than not, the effects blend seamlessly.

Like it or not, these synthespians are the stunt men of the future. Just a couple months back, cyber stuntmen were used in the film Blade II to free its actors from the forces of gravity during battle scenes, thus adopting a full-on comic aesthetic. While Blade II didn?t have nearly the same level of exposure as Spider-Man, it was highly anticipated by those that enjoyed the first film. Complaints about the realism of the effects were largely non-existent. While in Blade II computers were used to place characters in a fight, in Spider-Man they allow a boy to take flight. It would seem that it is much easier to punch an actual human than to launch one, therefore the digital assistance appears necessary. I view Spider-Man?s CGI marvels with a fond eye and I know that while slightly rough around the edges (in rare moments), they allow the audience to share Spider-Man?s point of view as he soars through the canyons of Manhattan. And I know the effects will only improve by the next film.

Setting the debate over effects aside, attention must be paid to the performances. As mentioned before, Tobey Maguire received his fair share of doubt and disbelief when he was cast as Spider-Man. While many of Hollywood?s heavy hitting ?hotties? were studio darlings for the coveted slot, including Maguire homey Leonardo DiCaprio, director Raimi knew that it was a sensitive soul that was required to possess Peter Parker.

To this critic, Maguire was always the perfect choice. In films such as The Ice Storm, The Cider House Rules and Wonder Boys, Maguire has brought a great sense of gravity to his Everyman persona. In Peter Parker, he channels that same spirit, while infusing an infectious sense of joy. Traveling the character arc required by the story in bringing this wallflower to superhero stature, Maguire is called upon to run a vast gamut of emotions. Over the course of the film Maguire effortlessly shifts from the shy introvert to the loving nephew to joyful discovery to bitter pain and revenge, until finally hoisting the mantle of responsibility. His performance, as dictated by the events of the film, stands as a metaphor for the growth from adolescence to adulthood, but it is Maguire who plays this realistically, allowing the viewer to get closer than they?ve ever been to living the hero?s fantastic life.

As the girl for whom Peter Parker forever swoons, Kirsten Dunst continues to impress in her performance as Mary Jane Watson. As with Maguire?s Parker, Dunst?s Mary Jane provides this film with heart. Mary Jane, both the proverbial and, for Peter, literal ?girl next door,? has held Peter?s attention since grade school. While the character has been slightly altered from the comics, where she was represented as a blossoming fashion model rather than the wanna-be actress seen in the film, the changes allow the audience to identify with Peter?s vision of her as the dream girl. Dunst brings a nice sense of realism to the role, drawing several dimensions to the character. A nice sequence midway through the film, where Parker steals a rare moment alone with Watson and lends valued credence to her dreams of becoming an actress, plays out beautifully in the touched reaction that dawns across her face. Moments later, as her hunky boyfriend screeches onto the scene in his new, sporty convertible, she effortlessly shifts gears to that other part of her personality that tries to cover her internal pain and diminished self-confidence with shiny new things. Dunst, a young actress who has been working roughly 75 percent of her twenty years, imparts a sparkling quality tinged with sadness that compels the audience, like Parker, to aspire to white knight heroics. The signing of Maguire and Dunst to at least two more sequels is encouraging for this series' - and its characters? - longevity.

With two well-drawn ?good guys?, it is disappointing that the Green Goblin is the weaker element in the story. Over the last decade, many Hollywood blockbusters were criticized for delivering delicious stabs at villainy while presenting watered-down heroes. Spider-Man, while not a complete shift in focus, offers up a villain that runs hot and cold. It should be noted that the problems inherent with the villain are not the fault of the actor, but rather David (Jurassic Park) Koepp?s script. Willem Dafoe does a great job in portraying the character of defense contractor Norman Osborn and his Jekyll-and-Hyde-like transformations into the Green Goblin.

There have been complaints from some corners that the Goblin?s look is too artificial, or that his battle suit appears to have been stolen from the Power Rangers? prop room. In interviews, Raimi has explained that the Green Gobin suit, a prototype battle armor created by Osborne?s company, is based on a centuries old martial tactic utilizing terrifying masks to inspire fear in the enemy. The psychological ramifications of that concept compliment Osborne?s brewing mental tempest. The problem is the script never touches upon that subject. It simply introduces a battle suit (minus menacing mask) early in the film, then when the suit appears again as the uniform for Osborne?s night job, the mask has materialized. It?s a tiny detail, but one that could have been corrected with a tighter script.

Dafoe does portray evil convincingly. He certainly has the face for it. He is especially effective in the scenes where his two personalities rage and jockey for position within his head, while his countenance can barely keep up.

The only real problem I have with the film, and this is a similar complaint I had with X-Men, is that after doing a great job of introducing the elements in this universe, the film seems to rush to a climactic showdown and conclusion. Willem Dafoe?s Green Goblin is provided with ample screen time, particularly in depicting his tortured descent into madness, but as the film begins closing in on the 2-hour mark, the villain seems to invent a harrowing dilemma for our hero merely to set the stage for one last battle royale. He lacks a grand plan, and his escalating personal attacks come off as plot devices aimed at steering good toward evil for that one final showdown. Thankfully, the film recovers at the end and hints at darker times to come.

With confident direction, great performances, breath-taking cinematography and inventive action set pieces, Spider-Man is top caliber summer entertainment and a memorable introduction for this hero. Simply put, Spider-Man swings.